Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion should be illegal.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 7:27:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Liberal agenda have made abortion an issue that has corroded wholesome family value and the value of life.

1st. A fetus is a unique human at a stage of development.

2. Pregnancy is a medical condition that normally does not result in the loss of life, limb or eyesight of the mother or child.

3. Parents should be informed and consent to medical treatment of their children.

4. tax payer money should not be spent on elective surgeries and treatments.

Given these. the laws allowing children under the age of 18 to seek elective surgeries (abortion) for a non fetal condition (2) without parental consent, is unlawful. The Court has constantly rules that parental rights are "fundamental rights" (http://www.hslda.org...).

Abortion as an elective procedure that is not life threatening, should be the sole responsibility of the woman. just because she has a choice and freedom to decide what to do to her body, does not mean the rest of us have to pay for it. ON a further note about this right.. it is fake. A 19 year old woman who chooses she does not want to have kids can not pay for her tubes to get tied. The medical society has said only to do this if she has had 3 kids or over some age. SO if when really did have the right to choose surgeries in regards to her body, tubes tied should be one of them. (but it isn't about rights. it is about destroying life)

While only 3 out of 100 death row inmates are executed. The rest live decades int he prison system. A life through their own merit has faced the due process of law and sentenced to die is not killed. But an unborn with no voice and no appeal is.

Some say life begins at birth. This does not stop following abortion arguments to their logical conclusions-> "That we for the sake of how a child effects our life define when a child's life begins."

Which is why even when fetus survive abortion and are breathing air they are left to die. http://www.lifenews.com...

Why pro-choice people advocate that parents have a choice up to a few months to kill new born babies. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Clearly, Abortion is a heinous crime against Human life, that do not have a political voice to argue against their murder. That the pregnancy and condition were caused by the merit and choice of already existing human lives (in at least 99.99 percent of ALL cases).

The original condition set forth by the justices in Roe vs. Wade was legalizing abortions for fetuses prior to viable week to live outside the mother. Advances in medical science have new borns surviving outside the mother at 21 weeks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

How is that possible, well for one reason because the fetus at 21 weeks has all it's organs, fingers, toes, nerves, eyes, ears, mouth, tongue, ect.. that it will have at birth. ,Just fragile.

Taking of human life on such a regular basis is traumatic (or should be so). And such actions cause well known mental fatigue and stress in soldiers. Which is why Abortion practitioners try every thing to desensitize abortion nurses. http://www.lifeadvocate.org...

When it is a choice between a Mother living and the baby living it is the lesser of two evils. Pregnancies that go wrong and result on a life threatening condition will happen. Doctors have for ages, then perform abortions. These rare cases are case-by-case and should not dictate policy for the majority of the population. As they have never before been seen as illegal or poor medical practice. And have little to no bearing on the issue of women reproductive rights, right to life, or that most women in the world use abortion as a form of birth control. getting sometimes 3-4 before age 30.

but Late term abortions are practiced, to include in some parts of the united states. This is a child only weeks and days from being born. The abortionist punctures the fetuses head while still in the womb, and often pulls with forcepts to severe the head from body. https://www.google.com...

In a Danish study, (Denmark is a prime example of Liberal policy in action) shows Abortion is more dangerous to a Woman's health than child birth. http://www.lifenews.com...

Pro-abortion leftist have a political agenda that is opposed to life, the constitutional rights granted to everyone, the rights of parents, the health of women, and the cultivation of a wholesome stable country.

It's primary concern is the legalization of murdering human life.

thank you.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 7:56:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Abortion is god's greatest gift.
Straight to heaven you go, no suffering just paradise.
Or don't you believe in god?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 8:53:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Have you ever heard of the right of bodily autonomy (which even corpses have)?

Why should a women give up that right?

Furthermore, if the version of the b-theory of time with all possible past, presents, and futures are real, then the choice doesn't impact the noumenal reality, only the phenomenal view of it (as in a different perception of time the other choice was made).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 9:12:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 7:27:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Pro-abortion leftist have a political agenda that is opposed to life, the constitutional rights granted to everyone, the rights of parents...

Ah, so fighting for the right for parents to decide for themselves = opposed to the rights of parents. Got it.
Fly
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 9:26:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Pro-choice women have a joke about this: if men got pregnant, there would be drive thru abortion clinics in every town.

Cool topic, by the way...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 9:50:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I said it before and I'll say it again, the fetus does not poccess the neural pathways for consciousness untill around the 24-26th week.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:22:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 8:53:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Have you ever heard of the right of bodily autonomy (which even corpses have)?

How does a corpse have it but not a fetus?


Why should a women give up that right?

As with most rights, they extend only as far as they impede on anther's rights. Considering the fetus's life has the same rights, the harm a mother would inflict pertaining to her rights is only naturally limited by the baby's rights.


Furthermore, if the version of the b-theory of time with all possible past, presents, and futures are real, then the choice doesn't impact the noumenal reality, only the phenomenal view of it (as in a different perception of time the other choice was made).
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:25:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 9:12:41 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/19/2015 7:27:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Pro-abortion leftist have a political agenda that is opposed to life, the constitutional rights granted to everyone, the rights of parents...

Ah, so fighting for the right for parents to decide for themselves = opposed to the rights of parents. Got it.

Parents have rights. But abortion never takes into account of the father's rights. So parental rights (mother father) have nothing to do with abortion.

As stated before rights only extend as far as they meet with others. So the rights to the parent do not extend so far as to decide to kill their 10 year old, their 2 year old, or even their 20 week old.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:28:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 9:26:54 PM, Fly wrote:
Pro-choice women have a joke about this: if men got pregnant, there would be drive thru abortion clinics in every town.

Cool topic, by the way...

I doubt that.

It's also an argument from a hypothetical contrary to fact. The premise is that pregnancy is so painful and it is a pain only women can handle. Which there is no way to really know that.

I for one have endured a lot of pain. I honestly do not care what any woman says about child birth, I have felt pain worse than that. And I would not be one at an abortion clinic.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:39:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 9:50:36 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, the fetus does not poccess the neural pathways for consciousness untill around the 24-26th week.

1. i do not think consciousness is that well understood for you to make such a statement. The premise you have to accept is that neural efficiency is measure of consciousness. I reject it, till you demonstrate reasonable justification for it.

2. Consciousness is some arbitrary measure you have elected. I elect that human life begins with the first genetic cell unique to a person. All other factors are only developmental stages. Why don't we "abort" preteen boys and girls because they lack pubic hair and do not reproduce (reproduction being a classic attribute of "living").

What ever argument you have for killing a human fetus in the womb, can be shifted with out breaking it's logic. As I just did, I just pick a different developmental feature and say human life is okay to kill till then.

It is logical that human life begins at conception. As such it has rights and deserve protections. Until, at a point in time a life, it endangers others. Then through a fair appraisal, meet a sentence of death due to merit of the life. Not due for someone else's convenience.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:44:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 7:56:07 PM, bulproof wrote:
Abortion is god's greatest gift.
Straight to heaven you go, no suffering just paradise.
Or don't you believe in god?

Assuming your context in a judo-christian God, where in the Bible does it say killed babies go to heaven?

i don't believe all babies go to heaven.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:51:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 10:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 7:56:07 PM, bulproof wrote:
Abortion is god's greatest gift.
Straight to heaven you go, no suffering just paradise.
Or don't you believe in god?

Assuming your context in a judo-christian God, where in the Bible does it say killed babies go to heaven?

i don't believe all babies go to heaven.
So your god punishes innocent souls?
Who is worse the abortionist or the god that punishes for eternity?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Rubikx
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:54:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 7:27:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Liberal agenda have made abortion an issue that has corroded wholesome family value and the value of life.

1st. A fetus is a unique human at a stage of development.

2. Pregnancy is a medical condition that normally does not result in the loss of life, limb or eyesight of the mother or child.

3. Parents should be informed and consent to medical treatment of their children.

4. tax payer money should not be spent on elective surgeries and treatments.

Given these. the laws allowing children under the age of 18 to seek elective surgeries (abortion) for a non fetal condition (2) without parental consent, is unlawful. The Court has constantly rules that parental rights are "fundamental rights" (http://www.hslda.org...).

Abortion as an elective procedure that is not life threatening, should be the sole responsibility of the woman. just because she has a choice and freedom to decide what to do to her body, does not mean the rest of us have to pay for it. ON a further note about this right.. it is fake. A 19 year old woman who chooses she does not want to have kids can not pay for her tubes to get tied. The medical society has said only to do this if she has had 3 kids or over some age. SO if when really did have the right to choose surgeries in regards to her body, tubes tied should be one of them. (but it isn't about rights. it is about destroying life)

While only 3 out of 100 death row inmates are executed. The rest live decades int he prison system. A life through their own merit has faced the due process of law and sentenced to die is not killed. But an unborn with no voice and no appeal is.

Some say life begins at birth. This does not stop following abortion arguments to their logical conclusions-> "That we for the sake of how a child effects our life define when a child's life begins."

Which is why even when fetus survive abortion and are breathing air they are left to die. http://www.lifenews.com...

Why pro-choice people advocate that parents have a choice up to a few months to kill new born babies. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Clearly, Abortion is a heinous crime against Human life, that do not have a political voice to argue against their murder. That the pregnancy and condition were caused by the merit and choice of already existing human lives (in at least 99.99 percent of ALL cases).

The original condition set forth by the justices in Roe vs. Wade was legalizing abortions for fetuses prior to viable week to live outside the mother. Advances in medical science have new borns surviving outside the mother at 21 weeks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

How is that possible, well for one reason because the fetus at 21 weeks has all it's organs, fingers, toes, nerves, eyes, ears, mouth, tongue, ect.. that it will have at birth. ,Just fragile.

Taking of human life on such a regular basis is traumatic (or should be so). And such actions cause well known mental fatigue and stress in soldiers. Which is why Abortion practitioners try every thing to desensitize abortion nurses. http://www.lifeadvocate.org...

When it is a choice between a Mother living and the baby living it is the lesser of two evils. Pregnancies that go wrong and result on a life threatening condition will happen. Doctors have for ages, then perform abortions. These rare cases are case-by-case and should not dictate policy for the majority of the population. As they have never before been seen as illegal or poor medical practice. And have little to no bearing on the issue of women reproductive rights, right to life, or that most women in the world use abortion as a form of birth control. getting sometimes 3-4 before age 30.

but Late term abortions are practiced, to include in some parts of the united states. This is a child only weeks and days from being born. The abortionist punctures the fetuses head while still in the womb, and often pulls with forcepts to severe the head from body. https://www.google.com...

In a Danish study, (Denmark is a prime example of Liberal policy in action) shows Abortion is more dangerous to a Woman's health than child birth. http://www.lifenews.com...

Pro-abortion leftist have a political agenda that is opposed to life, the constitutional rights granted to everyone, the rights of parents, the health of women, and the cultivation of a wholesome stable country.

It's primary concern is the legalization of murdering human life.

thank you.

Personally I think the fetus does have the right to life, but I don't think abortion should be illegal. The only time abortion should be allowed is when giving birth could permanently injure or kill the mother. In that case where both have the right to life, but one living means the other could die then it should be entirely up to the mother to choose as its her life at risk.
I also recognize that giving birth is a life altering event and some people don't want it. So I believe that they should have to give birth but be compensated for it and not have to raise the child unless they want to.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:56:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 10:39:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:50:36 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, the fetus does not poccess the neural pathways for consciousness untill around the 24-26th week.

1. i do not think consciousness is that well understood for you to make such a statement. The premise you have to accept is that neural efficiency is measure of consciousness. I reject it, till you demonstrate reasonable justification for it.

2. Consciousness is some arbitrary measure you have elected. I elect that human life begins with the first genetic cell unique to a person. All other factors are only developmental stages. Why don't we "abort" preteen boys and girls because they lack pubic hair and do not reproduce (reproduction being a classic attribute of "living").

What ever argument you have for killing a human fetus in the womb, can be shifted with out breaking it's logic. As I just did, I just pick a different developmental feature and say human life is okay to kill till then.

It is logical that human life begins at conception. As such it has rights and deserve protections. Until, at a point in time a life, it endangers others. Then through a fair appraisal, meet a sentence of death due to merit of the life. Not due for someone else's convenience.

Let me ask you a question. Why humans? What do humans have that is so special and deserving of rights which other animals dont have. Why is it a terrible crime to kill a human life but a bacteria's or rat's life is insignificant.
Fly
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 10:58:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 10:28:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:26:54 PM, Fly wrote:
Pro-choice women have a joke about this: if men got pregnant, there would be drive thru abortion clinics in every town.

Cool topic, by the way...

I doubt that.

It's also an argument from a hypothetical contrary to fact. The premise is that pregnancy is so painful and it is a pain only women can handle. Which there is no way to really know that.

I for one have endured a lot of pain. I honestly do not care what any woman says about child birth, I have felt pain worse than that. And I would not be one at an abortion clinic.

Ya don't say?

Anyway, the real point of the joke is that if men were saddled with carrying a baby for 9 months after a good romp, and they still had the societal authority they have now, there is NO WAY that they would allow their self determination over their own bodies to be compromised.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 11:01:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 10:39:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:50:36 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, the fetus does not poccess the neural pathways for consciousness untill around the 24-26th week.

1. i do not think consciousness is that well understood for you to make such a statement. The premise you have to accept is that neural efficiency is measure of consciousness. I reject it, till you demonstrate reasonable justification for it.
It is simply the case that the neuronal basis has not formed.

2. Consciousness is some arbitrary measure you have elected. I elect that human life begins with the first genetic cell unique to a person. All other factors are only developmental stages. Why don't we "abort" preteen boys and girls because they lack pubic hair and do not reproduce (reproduction being a classic attribute of "living").
No, because they are already conscious beings. Your standard is arguably more arbitrary. Is hurting someone wrong because they have human DNA or is hurting someone wrong because it hurts them?

What ever argument you have for killing a human fetus in the womb, can be shifted with out breaking it's logic. As I just did, I just pick a different developmental feature and say human life is okay to kill till then.

It is logical that human life begins at conception. As such it has rights and deserve protections. Until, at a point in time a life, it endangers others. Then through a fair appraisal, meet a sentence of death due to merit of the life. Not due for someone else's convenience.
Sure it's a human, but it's not a person. It is ball of cells, you literally do more harm / kill more cells when washing hands. Cells don't care about whether or not they will live a long life.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 11:17:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 10:58:07 PM, Fly wrote:
At 5/19/2015 10:28:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:26:54 PM, Fly wrote:
Pro-choice women have a joke about this: if men got pregnant, there would be drive thru abortion clinics in every town.

Cool topic, by the way...

I doubt that.

It's also an argument from a hypothetical contrary to fact. The premise is that pregnancy is so painful and it is a pain only women can handle. Which there is no way to really know that.

I for one have endured a lot of pain. I honestly do not care what any woman says about child birth, I have felt pain worse than that. And I would not be one at an abortion clinic.

Ya don't say?

Anyway, the real point of the joke is that if men were saddled with carrying a baby for 9 months after a good romp, and they still had the societal authority they have now, there is NO WAY that they would allow their self determination over their own bodies to be compromised.

I think men are capable of sacrificing for the life of others. I would say more so for thier own offspring.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 11:19:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 11:01:50 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/19/2015 10:39:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:50:36 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, the fetus does not poccess the neural pathways for consciousness untill around the 24-26th week.

1. i do not think consciousness is that well understood for you to make such a statement. The premise you have to accept is that neural efficiency is measure of consciousness. I reject it, till you demonstrate reasonable justification for it.
It is simply the case that the neuronal basis has not formed.

2. Consciousness is some arbitrary measure you have elected. I elect that human life begins with the first genetic cell unique to a person. All other factors are only developmental stages. Why don't we "abort" preteen boys and girls because they lack pubic hair and do not reproduce (reproduction being a classic attribute of "living").
No, because they are already conscious beings. Your standard is arguably more arbitrary. Is hurting someone wrong because they have human DNA or is hurting someone wrong because it hurts them?

What ever argument you have for killing a human fetus in the womb, can be shifted with out breaking it's logic. As I just did, I just pick a different developmental feature and say human life is okay to kill till then.

It is logical that human life begins at conception. As such it has rights and deserve protections. Until, at a point in time a life, it endangers others. Then through a fair appraisal, meet a sentence of death due to merit of the life. Not due for someone else's convenience.
Sure it's a human, but it's not a person. It is ball of cells, you literally do more harm / kill more cells when washing hands. Cells don't care about whether or not they will live a long life.

Is taking someone's life okay if they are consciously unaware of it?
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 11:20:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 11:01:50 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/19/2015 10:39:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:50:36 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, the fetus does not poccess the neural pathways for consciousness untill around the 24-26th week.

1. i do not think consciousness is that well understood for you to make such a statement. The premise you have to accept is that neural efficiency is measure of consciousness. I reject it, till you demonstrate reasonable justification for it.
It is simply the case that the neuronal basis has not formed.

2. Consciousness is some arbitrary measure you have elected. I elect that human life begins with the first genetic cell unique to a person. All other factors are only developmental stages. Why don't we "abort" preteen boys and girls because they lack pubic hair and do not reproduce (reproduction being a classic attribute of "living").
No, because they are already conscious beings. Your standard is arguably more arbitrary. Is hurting someone wrong because they have human DNA or is hurting someone wrong because it hurts them?

What ever argument you have for killing a human fetus in the womb, can be shifted with out breaking it's logic. As I just did, I just pick a different developmental feature and say human life is okay to kill till then.

It is logical that human life begins at conception. As such it has rights and deserve protections. Until, at a point in time a life, it endangers others. Then through a fair appraisal, meet a sentence of death due to merit of the life. Not due for someone else's convenience.
Sure it's a human, but it's not a person. It is ball of cells, you literally do more harm / kill more cells when washing hands. Cells don't care about whether or not they will live a long life.

good points Fkkize
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 11:30:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 10:22:40 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 8:53:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Have you ever heard of the right of bodily autonomy (which even corpses have)?

How does a corpse have it but not a fetus?

Because a corpse actually had an autonomous body. It was independent of anyone/thing else.


Why should a women give up that right?

As with most rights, they extend only as far as they impede on anther's rights. Considering the fetus's life has the same rights, the harm a mother would inflict pertaining to her rights is only naturally limited by the baby's rights.

What right does the fetus have to be a parasite on the mother, exactly? I missed that part.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 11:36:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 11:20:15 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 11:01:50 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/19/2015 10:39:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:50:36 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, the fetus does not poccess the neural pathways for consciousness untill around the 24-26th week.

1. i do not think consciousness is that well understood for you to make such a statement. The premise you have to accept is that neural efficiency is measure of consciousness. I reject it, till you demonstrate reasonable justification for it.
It is simply the case that the neuronal basis has not formed.

2. Consciousness is some arbitrary measure you have elected. I elect that human life begins with the first genetic cell unique to a person. All other factors are only developmental stages. Why don't we "abort" preteen boys and girls because they lack pubic hair and do not reproduce (reproduction being a classic attribute of "living").
No, because they are already conscious beings. Your standard is arguably more arbitrary. Is hurting someone wrong because they have human DNA or is hurting someone wrong because it hurts them?

What ever argument you have for killing a human fetus in the womb, can be shifted with out breaking it's logic. As I just did, I just pick a different developmental feature and say human life is okay to kill till then.

It is logical that human life begins at conception. As such it has rights and deserve protections. Until, at a point in time a life, it endangers others. Then through a fair appraisal, meet a sentence of death due to merit of the life. Not due for someone else's convenience.
Sure it's a human, but it's not a person. It is ball of cells, you literally do more harm / kill more cells when washing hands. Cells don't care about whether or not they will live a long life.

good points Fkkize

The nueral basics and primary pathways are present in 20 week old fetuses.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 11:45:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 11:30:13 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/19/2015 10:22:40 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 8:53:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Have you ever heard of the right of bodily autonomy (which even corpses have)?

How does a corpse have it but not a fetus?

Because a corpse actually had an autonomous body. It was independent of anyone/thing else.


Why should a women give up that right?

As with most rights, they extend only as far as they impede on anther's rights. Considering the fetus's life has the same rights, the harm a mother would inflict pertaining to her rights is only naturally limited by the baby's rights.

What right does the fetus have to be a parasite on the mother, exactly? I missed that part.

Parasitic relationships are between two different species. What you are refering to is how one species, humans, reproduce. Unless you are confounding human with a type of virus .
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 11:52:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 11:30:13 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/19/2015 10:22:40 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 8:53:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Have you ever heard of the right of bodily autonomy (which even corpses have)?

How does a corpse have it but not a fetus?

Because a corpse actually had an autonomous body. It was independent of anyone/thing else.

A human corpse from it's first stage of development has not always been independent. Alas your logic here would qualify breast feeding babies as being unprotected against killing.

It would also be legal for a twin with control of the most organs to have its siamese twin severed off and die.



Why should a women give up that right?

As with most rights, they extend only as far as they impede on anther's rights. Considering the fetus's life has the same rights, the harm a mother would inflict pertaining to her rights is only naturally limited by the baby's rights.

What right does the fetus have to be a parasite on the mother, exactly? I missed that part.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2015 11:58:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 11:45:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 11:30:13 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/19/2015 10:22:40 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 8:53:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Have you ever heard of the right of bodily autonomy (which even corpses have)?

How does a corpse have it but not a fetus?

Because a corpse actually had an autonomous body. It was independent of anyone/thing else.


Why should a women give up that right?

As with most rights, they extend only as far as they impede on anther's rights. Considering the fetus's life has the same rights, the harm a mother would inflict pertaining to her rights is only naturally limited by the baby's rights.

What right does the fetus have to be a parasite on the mother, exactly? I missed that part.

Parasitic relationships are between two different species.

Mm. No. Flatly, no. Please don't make me have to produce volumes on the matter regarding psychological co dependency, enabling, addiction, angler fish, etc.

What you are refering to is how one species, humans, reproduce. Unless you are confounding human with a type of virus .

And that by its nature is a parasitic relationship from the onset. It fits the bill, perfectly.

"par"a"site
/G2;perəG6;sīt/

noun
noun: parasite; plural noun: parasites

an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense."
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 12:01:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 11:52:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 11:30:13 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/19/2015 10:22:40 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 8:53:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Have you ever heard of the right of bodily autonomy (which even corpses have)?

How does a corpse have it but not a fetus?

Because a corpse actually had an autonomous body. It was independent of anyone/thing else.

A human corpse from it's first stage of development has not always been independent. Alas your logic here would qualify breast feeding babies as being unprotected against killing.

Only if you begin to stretch what you think is "autonomous". No life processes in a baby after birth depend upon the mother. Before birth, such is not the case.

It would also be legal for a twin with control of the most organs to have its siamese twin severed off and die.

Please elaborate how you dictate "the most control" over organs that are involuntarily directed.



Why should a women give up that right?

As with most rights, they extend only as far as they impede on anther's rights. Considering the fetus's life has the same rights, the harm a mother would inflict pertaining to her rights is only naturally limited by the baby's rights.

What right does the fetus have to be a parasite on the mother, exactly? I missed that part.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 1:04:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 10:22:40 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 8:53:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Have you ever heard of the right of bodily autonomy (which even corpses have)?

How does a corpse have it but not a fetus?

The women isn't intruding on the fetus's body, the fetus is intruding on the women's body.

Why should a women give up that right?

As with most rights, they extend only as far as they impede on anther's rights. Considering the fetus's life has the same rights, the harm a mother would inflict pertaining to her rights is only naturally limited by the baby's rights.

Why should a fetus have the same rights?

Furthermore, if the version of the b-theory of time with all possible past, presents, and futures are real, then the choice doesn't impact the noumenal reality, only the phenomenal view of it (as in a different perception of time the other choice was made).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 1:36:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why is this in Religion and not Politics?

If we believe protection of the unborn (at whatever stage of development) is a theological issue but not a secular moral issue, then how is prosecuting a religious belief into law not religious hegemonism?

On the other hand if it's not a theological issue but a secular moral issue, what is the question doing here?
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 1:53:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 11:36:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 11:20:15 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 5/19/2015 11:01:50 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/19/2015 10:39:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 9:50:36 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, the fetus does not poccess the neural pathways for consciousness untill around the 24-26th week.

1. i do not think consciousness is that well understood for you to make such a statement. The premise you have to accept is that neural efficiency is measure of consciousness. I reject it, till you demonstrate reasonable justification for it.
It is simply the case that the neuronal basis has not formed.

2. Consciousness is some arbitrary measure you have elected. I elect that human life begins with the first genetic cell unique to a person. All other factors are only developmental stages. Why don't we "abort" preteen boys and girls because they lack pubic hair and do not reproduce (reproduction being a classic attribute of "living").
No, because they are already conscious beings. Your standard is arguably more arbitrary. Is hurting someone wrong because they have human DNA or is hurting someone wrong because it hurts them?

What ever argument you have for killing a human fetus in the womb, can be shifted with out breaking it's logic. As I just did, I just pick a different developmental feature and say human life is okay to kill till then.

It is logical that human life begins at conception. As such it has rights and deserve protections. Until, at a point in time a life, it endangers others. Then through a fair appraisal, meet a sentence of death due to merit of the life. Not due for someone else's convenience.
Sure it's a human, but it's not a person. It is ball of cells, you literally do more harm / kill more cells when washing hands. Cells don't care about whether or not they will live a long life.

good points Fkkize

The nueral basics and primary pathways are present in 20 week old fetuses.

This would only support a 20 week abortion ban not making abortion illegal exept in life saving cases. Also large numbers of other animals have these nueral pathways but I dont see pesticides or animal experimentation being banned anytime soon.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 3:16:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/19/2015 10:51:34 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/19/2015 10:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 7:56:07 PM, bulproof wrote:
Abortion is god's greatest gift.
Straight to heaven you go, no suffering just paradise.
Or don't you believe in god?

Assuming your context in a judo-christian God, where in the Bible does it say killed babies go to heaven?

i don't believe all babies go to heaven.
So your god punishes innocent souls?
Who is worse the abortionist or the god that punishes for eternity?

It would seem that the believers are never able to address this dilemma.
Why is that do you think?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:12:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 3:16:02 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/19/2015 10:51:34 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/19/2015 10:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/19/2015 7:56:07 PM, bulproof wrote:
Abortion is god's greatest gift.
Straight to heaven you go, no suffering just paradise.
Or don't you believe in god?

Assuming your context in a judo-christian God, where in the Bible does it say killed babies go to heaven?

i don't believe all babies go to heaven.
So your god punishes innocent souls?
Who is worse the abortionist or the god that punishes for eternity?

It would seem that the believers are never able to address this dilemma.
Why is that do you think?

Did you answer my question? No. Then your post is a strawman. It doesn't even reflect a premise in christian religion.